News from Civsy, based on generative AI tools and retrieval-augumented real time data searchA group of UK-based Jewish artists and creatives has ignited a nuanced debate about antisemitism, censorship, and artistic freedom with the release of Courage and Care: Guidelines on confronting antisemitism and censorship in the arts. Published on the 7th May and endorsed by over 100 Jewish signatories—including playwright Toby Marlow (Six) and Daniel Bernstein of Emergency Exit Arts—the document challenges institutional approaches to defining and addressing antisemitism in cultural spaces.
Origins and Intent of the Guidelines
The guidelines respond to rising concerns about both antisemitism in the UK and the suppression of pro-Palestinian expression in arts institutions. Authored by Jewish Artists UK, the text aims to clarify distinctions between legitimate political critique and antisemitic rhetoric, particularly in contexts involving Israel-Palestine discourse. By providing a Jewish-led framework, the authors seek to counter the weaponization of antisemitism accusations to silence dissent while addressing systemic discrimination faced by Jewish communities.
Core Arguments: Defining Boundaries and the Phrase ‘From the River to the Sea’
Central to the document is its rejection of conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Phrases like “occupation,” “apartheid,” or “genocide” when discussing Israeli policies, as well as symbols such as the Palestinian flag or the slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, are explicitly deemed non-antisemitic unless paired with tropes about Jewish power or exclusion.
The phrase “from the river to the sea” refers to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, a region historically known as Mandatory Palestine. Its origins are contested:
Zionist roots: Early 20th-century Zionist movements used similar language to advocate for a Jewish state across the region.
Palestinian adoption: By the 1960s, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) repurposed the slogan to call for a secular, democratic state with equal rights for all inhabitants.
Interpretations of the phrase remain polarized. For many Palestinians and supporters, it symbolizes resistance to occupation and a vision of unity and equality. Critics, however, argue it implies the eradication of Israel, citing its use by groups like Hamas. The guidelines emphasize that context determines intent, asserting that censoring the phrase in artistic contexts risks stifling legitimate political expression unless overtly tied to antisemitic tropes.
The document also condemns clear antisemitic acts, including workplace discrimination, Holocaust denial, and harmful stereotypes (e.g., portraying Jewish characters as greedy or conspiratorial). Equally significant is the text’s stance on artistic freedom. It argues against censoring pro-Palestinian art under the pretext of combating antisemitism, asserting that art must remain “political, subversive, [and] uncomfortable.” Institutions are urged to avoid imposing “balance” by requiring Israeli or Jewish perspectives alongside Palestinian narratives.
Impact on Cultural and Political Discourse
The guidelines have intensified debates over free expression in the UK arts sector. Proponents praise their nuanced approach to distinguishing anti-Zionism from antisemitism, offering a counter-narrative to definitions like the IHRA working definition, which critics argue conflates the two. By centring Jewish voices advocating for Palestinian rights, the document complicates assumptions that all critiques of censorship are inherently antisemitic.
Conversely, critics contend the guidelines risk downplaying antisemitism in progressive spaces. However, supporters emphasize their focus on dialogue over punitive measures in “grey area” cases, such as contentious artwork or programming. The text has also drawn attention to institutional double standards, particularly venues that cancel Palestinian-linked events citing “security concerns” while failing to address systemic antisemitism.
Broader Implications for Artistic Freedom
Released amid Israel’s war on Gaza and global protests for Palestinian rights, the guidelines have become a touchstone in redefining how cultural institutions navigate political speech. They highlight tensions between protecting marginalized groups and upholding artistic freedom—a balance particularly relevant to organizations like Mimeta, which advocate for creative expression as a human right.
By addressing both antisemitism and censorship, the document underscores the arts’ role in fostering difficult conversations. Its Jewish-authored perspective challenges institutions to adopt more equitable frameworks, ensuring that anti-racism efforts do not inadvertently suppress dissent. As debates evolve, the guidelines offer a roadmap for reconciling ethical accountability with the transformative potential of art.
New guidelines are reshaping the conversation around antisemitism and censorship in UK arts.
Over 100 Jewish creatives—including notable names like Toby Marlow and Daniel Bernstein—have endorsed Courage and Care, a document from Jewish Artists UK offering a bold, nuanced framework on how institutions should address antisemitism without silencing legitimate pro-Palestinian voices.
The document critiques the conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism and calls for institutions to uphold artistic freedom without imposing false “balance.” It’s a vital read for anyone working in culture, policy, or human rights.
#ArtisticFreedom #Antisemitism #JewishVoices #Censorship #ProPalestinian #CulturalPolicy #FreeExpression #HumanRights #UKArts #JewishCreatives #CourageAndCare
Sources:
Middle East Eye, The JC, and Jewish Artists UK’s official website. The guidelines are accessible online, with signatories including Toby Marlow (Six) and Daniel Bernstein (Emergency Exit Arts). The document aims to help institutions navigate antisemitism and censorship while protecting political art.
The phrase, ‘From the River to the Sea’, originated in Zionist and Palestinian movements, reflecting competing territorial claims. The PLO used it in the 1960s to advocate for a secular democratic state (see here and here).
